What is a "Forward Skip"?

"569" wrote in message news:
The Cessna 172R has a placard, "Avoid Slips with Flaps Extended". Now
it says, "avoid". It does not say that you can't do it. There was a
discussion in Flight Training Mag about 6 months ago that talked about
that same thing. In the Cessna 152 I always have full flaps in a slip.
I don;t truely understand why having flaps is a problem in the 172R.

The aircraft tends to oscillate on the pitch axis. It's never been shown to
be a hazard though. Just feels a bit weird.

le m

"kontiki" wrote in message
With full flaps its easy to end up real slow in a slip and approach a
stall.

It's easy without flaps too. Stalling isn't the real danger though, it's
spinning. With proper elevator input though, there's no danger of either.
And, this has nothing to do with Cessna's warning.

moo



wrote:

In the context it is used, and for my level of flying experience, yes
they
are interchangeable. I do not know more about the danger of this than
Cessna, so I would prefer to trust what they say. You level of
experience
is certainly different that mine, so your decision may be different than
mine.

That is not say that in the event of emergency I would not perform a slip
to land with full flaps if the need dictated.


Peter R. wrote:

) wrote:


Cessna 172M

"Avoid slips with full flap extension"

Are the words "avoid" and "prohibited" interchangeable?

Peter Duniho wrote:
Not with the proper control inputs it's not, nor is that in any way related
to the C172 warning to avoid slips with full flaps.



Well of course. Proper control inputs 100% of the time would eliminate at least
50% of the accidents.

Spinning requires a stall.

Happy Dog wrote:

"kontiki" wrote in message

With full flaps its easy to end up real slow in a slip and approach a
stall.


It's easy without flaps too. Stalling isn't the real danger though, it's
spinning. With proper elevator input though, there's no danger of either.
And, this has nothing to do with Cessna's warning.

moo



wrote:


In the context it is used, and for my level of flying experience, yes
they
are interchangeable. I do not know more about the danger of this than
Cessna, so I would prefer to trust what they say. You level of
experience
is certainly different that mine, so your decision may be different than
mine.

That is not say that in the event of emergency I would not perform a slip
to land with full flaps if the need dictated.


Peter R. wrote:


) wrote:



Cessna 172M

"Avoid slips with full flap extension"

Are the words "avoid" and "prohibited" interchangeable?

kontiki wrote:

It's easy without flaps too. Stalling isn't the real danger though,
it's spinning.

Spinning requires a stall.

But any properly trained low time student can recover from a stall
without spinning.

Stefan

I would not necessarily go so far as to say that. Working on my CFI
I had to undergo spin training... actually recovering from spins
multiple times. That training is not nromally a part of student
pilot training.

Remember that a spin requires a stall of one wing... the other
can be flying quite normally. Students are typically tought stalls
under coordinated conditions.

Stefan wrote:

kontiki wrote:

It's easy without flaps too. Stalling isn't the real danger though,

it's spinning.

Spinning requires a stall.

But any properly trained low time student can recover from a stall
without spinning.

Stefan

"AnthonyQ" wrote in message
...
I was told many years ago that a full rudder slip in a C172 (especially the
older models with 40deg flaps), it is possible to induce a tail stall

You were told wrong.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Well of course. Proper control inputs 100% of the time would eliminate at
least
50% of the accidents.

The point is that flaps don't change the control inputs required to avoid a
stall in a slip. If anything, they make a stall less likely, since they
lower the stall speed.

In theory of course. In the case of the 172 with 40 degrees of flaps they
contribute more drag than lift.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"kontiki" wrote in message
...

Well of course. Proper control inputs 100% of the time would eliminate at
least
50% of the accidents.


The point is that flaps don't change the control inputs required to avoid a
stall in a slip. If anything, they make a stall less likely, since they
lower the stall speed.

well, let me be more specific: the last 40 degrees contributes
more overall drag than lift.

kontiki wrote:
In theory of course. In the case of the 172 with 40 degrees of flaps they
contribute more drag than lift.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"kontiki" wrote in message
...

Well of course. Proper control inputs 100% of the time would
eliminate at least
50% of the accidents.



The point is that flaps don't change the control inputs required to
avoid a stall in a slip. If anything, they make a stall less likely,
since they lower the stall speed.